March 05, 2015, 07:20:18 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - bdunbar79

Pages: 1 ... 150 151 [152] 153 154 ... 176
2266
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 redefining lens choices?
« on: July 03, 2012, 12:55:06 AM »
I'm giving somewhat serious consideration to a 5D3.  Because I shoot sports, my constant struggle is to get enough light to keep the shutter speeds as high as I need them.  So I've always looked for the fastest lenses I can get, with f/2.8 being the minimum.  Of course with a fast moving target, when the DOF gets too thin, even the slightest miss on the AF starts to show, so it's a bit of a two-edged sword.

So the question is, with the great ISO available on the 5D3, will I start to be better friends with my 24-105L and can I consider the 17-40L (both of which are f/4.0) or should I still stick with the faster lenses?

If you're going to shoot sports with the 5D Mark III, I'd consider a few things.  For basketball, I'm using a 135L and a 200L, with a backup 85 f/1.8 for sideline/under the basket shots.  All are f/2 or wider.  I don't shoot anywhere near f/2 though.  These lenses just happen to have the ability to focus quickly.  I stop them down quite a bit actually, set my shutter speed to 1/500, and ISO to about 3200 or 6400 on a 5D III I'd guess.  I try to shoot around f/4 to f/6.3 in indoor lighting, with sufficient ISO to maintain 1/500s shutter speed.  Preferably outdoor sports it's easy to shoot 1/800 or 1/1000, which is better.  Since you won't likely shoot wider than f/4, the actual aperture is not the issue, it's the focusing speed of the lens itself, as well as focusing accuracy.  This is where the 135L, 200L, 300L, 400L all accel.  Obviously you don't need the 300's and 400's for indoor sports, but for football you would, and also track and field. 

Given all of that, higher ISO settings on the 5D Mark III will actually outperform my 1D Mark IV in comparison tests in similar lighting.  For instance, my 5D III's outperform my 1D4 at ISO 6400 by quite a bit it's looking like, so your camera should be great.

2267
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 redefining lens choices?
« on: July 03, 2012, 12:35:01 AM »
Ok, can you find me a 300 mm f/1.4L IS lens for night football then?  :P

2268
Lenses / Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« on: July 03, 2012, 12:30:22 AM »
I too found a used 400mm f/2.8L IS I lens in pretty decent shape for 5999.  Looking forward to using it.  There wasn't much brassing if any at all on the mount.

2269
The thing I learned the hard way is that you really want to keep that ISO as low as possible.  If your ISO is too high, the lights will look blown out and even blurry.  100 or 200 is plenty, f/8-f/11, focus at infinity if your lens is 24mm or shorter (I've shot at 35mm before too, at infinity) because those focal lengths have a relatively short distance to infinity.  Play around with and have FUN with the exposure time!  This stuff is reallly fun!  My recommendation is to take any tips on here and go experiment for yourself. 

2270
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 redefining lens choices?
« on: July 02, 2012, 07:48:25 PM »
You can't just go by ISO settings in the camera.  The lens matters a whole lot when focusing in low light.  The 300mm f/2.8L lens will focus much faster on moving objects in low light than the 300 f/4L.  This has to do with which types of auto focus sensors the lens can access.  If I were shooting evening football for instance, I would not use my 300 f/4L because I'd probably miss badly.  The 300 f/2.8L never misses.  It's both camera and lens that matters.

nailed it

And I have a long, long list of file names of photos where I missed badly to prove it  8) ;D

2271
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 redefining lens choices?
« on: July 02, 2012, 07:34:07 PM »
You can't just go by ISO settings in the camera.  The lens matters a whole lot when focusing in low light.  The 300mm f/2.8L lens will focus much faster on moving objects in low light than the 300 f/4L.  This has to do with which types of auto focus sensors the lens can access.  If I were shooting evening football for instance, I would not use my 300 f/4L because I'd probably miss badly.  The 300 f/2.8L never misses.  It's both camera and lens that matters.

2272
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: FF advise (mainly stills)
« on: July 02, 2012, 03:23:36 PM »
This advise was for the OP who has all primes and would benefit greatly of using two primes on two bodies. If your needs are different, you could start a thread if you'd like.
If the OP shoots portraits using Live View, as I and others sometimes do, he may use Live View.  therefore my post has relevance to the OP's intended use of the camera.  The 5D does not offer this functionality.  If you want to be defensive, perhaps you can start a separate thread on that.

Or you could read his original post.  Streets, portraits, concerts, low-light.  How is a tilt-shift lens at max ap f/3.5 going to be better than a 24 f/1.4?  The 24 f/1.4L is cheaper and suits his needs more.  A TS lens is for landscape photography and architectural shots, a specialty lens.  For his wide variety of shots, the 24mm is hands down way better than the TS lens.  So, we ARE going off what the OP needs.

2273
Sorry, I was j/k in a time that jokes are probably not well tolerated.  In these situations I took my 85 f/1.2L II and a short zoom lens, at the time it was a 24-70L I lens.  I had everything covered there for most of the "pre-wedding."

2274
EOS Bodies / Re: Good price for a used Canon 1V-HS?
« on: July 02, 2012, 12:49:31 PM »
The AF on the spec sheets are slated to be faster on the 1V, that's the only difference.  IQ is the same.

2275
EOS Bodies / Re: 1D X arriving in the US?
« on: July 02, 2012, 12:48:28 PM »
Probably grey market  ::)

2276
85 f/1.2L II baby.

2277
Figured it out, sorry  8)

2278
Lenses / Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« on: July 02, 2012, 12:37:23 AM »
Cool.  There were some problems with some lenses, hence the warning.  It doesn't mean it WON'T autofocus correctly, it says it MIGHT NOT autofocus correctly.  I'm glad that yours works b/c it's a heck of a lot cheaper using an extender than buying the new 600mm lens  :P

2279
Lenses / Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« on: July 02, 2012, 12:17:08 AM »
It's the Mark I, with IS.  The previous version prior to the Mark II.  5999 vs. 11,400 is a no brainer.  I shoot with a monopod, so I don't need to hand-hold it.  But thanks for your insight.  Always good to see another perspective.

2280
Lenses / Re: 400 mm f/2.8 L Mk I
« on: July 01, 2012, 11:45:02 PM »
One thing that you may want to check into is the compatibility of the 400 f2.8 MkI and the 2x MkIII converter. Unless I am reading the 2x MkIII manual (http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/8/0300004658/01/extender-ef-2x-iii-en.pdf) wrong, it says "Using an Extender with this lens may result in incorrect autofocus." The 2x MkII manual (http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/0/0300003490/01/extenderef2xii-en.pdf) contains no such warning.

eli72,

You are absolutely correct in the information you posted.  Thanks.

Pages: 1 ... 150 151 [152] 153 154 ... 176